10-IB08 08/24/10 Attorney General Opinion Letter to Chairman Lemire re: Applicability of the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act to The Villages of Noble's Pond
Issue is whether the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act (“Chapter 70”) applies to Nobles Pond in Dover. HELD: Yes. The definition of “manufactured home” in Chapter 70 deleted the previous language “and which is built on a permanent chasis.” Application of Chapter 70 turns on the presence or absence of land/lease arrangements not on technical definitions of housing standards.
Read More10-IB07 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Wilmington
Complainant asserts City violated FOIA by refusing to release documents related to collective bargaining between the City and one of its Unions and records relating to hiring of outside counsel. City asserts documents are exempt from release pursuant to 29 Del. C. Section 10002(g)(8) exempting document “involving labor negotiations or collective bargaining.” HELD: FOIA is co-extensive with the duty under Public Employment Relations Act (“PERA”) to provide information. The FOIA exemption excludes only records that could be excluded from the duty to provide information in collective bargaining. That is a question of labor law to be determined by PERB. However, the request for documents relating to hiring outside counsel should be produced. There is substantial public interest in how public bodies spend the public’s money.
Read More10-IB05 06/14/10 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Rush re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Ocean View
Complainant asserts Town violated FOIA by charging an excessive amount for town related emails that were on the Mayor’s home computer. The Town informed Complainant that it would charge $1,875 for a contractor to retrieve the documents because the Town did not have an employee who could provide this service. HELD: Town did not overcharge for the FOIA request. Public body may choose to employ services of a private contractor to respond to FOIA requests so long as decision to do so is reasonable.
Read More10-IB03 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Ocean View
Complainant asserts that town violated FOIA open meetings requirements related to (1) adequacy of notice of executive session on agenda; 92) exclusion of town manager from executive session and (3) whether matters discussed were appropriate for executive session. The agenda listed “Executive Session to Discuss Contract and Personnel Issues.” Complainant asserts that he believed the executive session topic related to the town manager employment contract. However, the executive session related to the Chief of Police contract. Agenda does not have to give full explanation of topics or names when confidential personnel matters will be discussed. HELD: Notice was adequate, employment contract negotiation matters are appropriate subject for executive session and FOIA does not address whether Counsel can exclude town manager from executive session.
Read More10-IB02 01/25/10 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. McCoy re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Town of Bethel
Complainant asserts that Town violated FOIA open meetings requirements when it held executive session to discuss subdivision applications. Town’s agenda properly posted and noticed the executive session but did not state the purpose. Town asserted that executive session was for purpose of receiving legal advice. After going into executive session and receiving legal advice, the Council discussed the applications for about an hour and voted on the applications before coming out of executive session. They re-voted at the public continued public meeting. Meeting minutes did not reflect legal advice. HELD: Executive Session was held for the proper purpose of receiving legal advice. However, Council violated FOIA by not listing the purpose of the executive session on the agenda, discussing applications during executive session and not properly reflecting legal advice in minutes.
Read More09-IB07 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Smyrna
Complainant asserts Smyrna violated FOIA’s open records requirements by not providing copies of records of the Town Ethics Commission concerning a complaint against him. Town provided notes from two meetings but provided no other records. Town asserts, among other things, that Smyrna’s Code of Conduct provides for the confidentiality of the Ethics Committee’s records and that the complaint is exempt from FOIA as a record specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or common law. HELD: Smyrna did not violate FOIA because Town’s Code of Conduct provided FOIA exemption by statute.
Read More09-IB04 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County
Complainant asserts that County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copies of text messages and emails which constitute approximately 1,180 pages. County requested a fee of $354 for paper copies and $227.12 for electronic copies on CD. HELD: Charge was reasonable and reasonably calculated.
Read More09-IB03 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County
Complainant asserts that County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copies of text messages and emails which constitute approximately 1,180 pages. County requested a fee of $354 for paper copies and $227.12 for electronic copies on CD. County also charged another person same amount for same FOIA request. HELD: Charge was reasonable and reasonably calculated. However, County cannot charge for both requests unless it incurs duplicate costs for retrieval.
Read More09-IB02 5/05/09 Street v. Colonial School District
Councilman Street asked whether the School District Board of Education (the “Board”) violated FOIA by removing a letter a member of the public distributed to the Board members prior to a public meeting and had a State Trooper escort that member of the public out of the building before the meeting started. Prior to the meeting when the Board Secretary began reviewing the letter, Mr. Hynson, a member of the public, approached the secretary and began yelling at him. The Board delayed the meeting for about six minutes in order for them to call the police. A State Trooper arrived and escorted Mr. Hynson from the building. According to witnesses, Mr. Hynson continued to yell the entire time. HELD: FOIA is silent as to whether a member of the public has the right to distribute papers to the members of a public body. FOIA is not concerned with the public’s ability to communicate with a public body, only with the public’s opportunity to observe that body. FOIA does allow a public body to remove a member of the public if they are “willfully and seriously disruptive.” The Board was justified in removing Mr. Hynson.
Read More08-IB14: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County
Complainant alleged Sussex County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copying records. Request was for electronic media download of current real property assessment date. County originally requested a flat fee of $12,000 then modified the charge to $3,000. County regulations allow $.30 per page for copies or “actual cost of reproduction” for records not subject to routine photocopying. County asserts that the information requested is made up of approximately 4 million records. HELD: County improperly equated each record with a copy. A record is not the same as a page. Electronic data cannot be charged on an arbitrary per record basis that has no relationship to the actual cost of reproduction.
Read More
